TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen

K.Mooneyham wrote:
jerry_r60 wrote:
G.A. Heath wrote:
bigity wrote:I could swear I heard Prat on Texas say this passed House committee yesterday, is that accurate or was I daydreaming on the way home from work?
HB910, Committee Substitute, which is this bill's companion passed the house yesterday.
It didn't pass the house, it was reported favorably out of the house committee. It has not passed the full house vote yet.
So, here is my question: is it now a matter of a certain someone actually letting it come to a vote on the floor before the full House? As in, if he doesn't let it, it just dies when the legislature adjourns?

That's my understanding, yes.

RHenriksen · Re: SB17 OC Bill On Intent Calendar for 3-16-2015. SB273 passed to engrossment!

SB273 passed to engrossment!

RHenriksen

CJD wrote:SB273 on floor now

W00t!!

RHenriksen

Tracker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.
I'm sure you'd be in favor of reducing the charge for display from a Class A to a Class C but I don't understand why that has never been brought to the legislature. That Class A would still apply at universities if campus carry passes.

Political capital is finite, you have to budget it each session on what your priorities are. If you spread it too thinly across too many different goals, you get... nothing (or a lot less than you could have if you'd prioritized).

RHenriksen

That's reassuring to hear, hope it goes smoothly

RHenriksen

TAM, can't the chair of the calendar committee just sit on the OC bill, and never bring it to a vote in the calendar committee? Wouldn't matter how many Rs there are if that happens.

RHenriksen

locke_n_load wrote:
ELB wrote:
Kolamer wrote:[...
What is the calendars committee and why would they prove to be troublesome?
I, and many others, believe the Speaker killed it because he is cozy with the Texas academic establishment, particularly UT, and they wanted it squelched.

A similar fate may await OC.
Doubtful, not with all the publicity that OC is getting this time around, IMO. If it doesn't come up for a vote, it will be very known who did it.

And thank goodness for the open record vote on speaker this term!

RHenriksen

G23WAX wrote:Given the high profile that has been placed on OC, assuming it does get deadlocked in the calendars committee, how does everyone feel about the chances of Abbott calling a special session to see it get a vote? Or is that something that can be done?

That's a very good question. Abbott has been tweeting & FB posting on OC regularly, and posted about 'getting his pen warmed up' to sign it, and immediately posted the minute is passed the third reading in the Senate this am.

I interpret this as his trying to nudge the House (ie, Strauss) into allowing it to the floor for a vote. If they sit on it, then IMO the odds of it going to a special session would be pretty strong.

RHenriksen

gsansing wrote:
e-bil wrote:I guess the next question is when does the House take this up and Strauss make this die in committee again?
HB 910 will have its hearing in the House today.

It'll have a hearing in a House *committee*, not on the floor of the House for a final vote. Big difference. It *should* pass out of committee, but in order to go from there to the floor, it has to be scheduled via the calendar committee. That's where it could get hung up.

RHenriksen

jayinsat wrote:Forgive my legislative ignorance, did OC pass? Are we just waiting for Gov. Abbott to sign it into law?

Not yet. It needs a final vote in the Senate (where it was being debated yesterday), then it needs to be approved in the House, *then* it would go to the Governor for his signature.

RHenriksen

AJSully421 wrote:You notice that all of these anti-gun folks have CHLs for themselves?

It's OK for me, but not for thee.

Has Estes been asking each Senator that during the debate?

RHenriksen

BigGuy wrote: Well, perhaps an amendment to require the carrier to be alive.

Wouldn't the "not a zombie" clause wind up excluding a lot of our elected officials?

RHenriksen

timtheteacher wrote:West is grandstanding . That's all it is... pitiful

It's a glorious thing, the sound of one's own voice

RHenriksen

BeanCounter wrote:
RHenriksen wrote:
I enjoyed Alice Tripp's talk at the TSRA convention this month - about how 'we don't insult people'! It can be awfully hard, at times, but you never know how your paths will cross over time.
What did she call them our "cranky cousins?" lol

OCTC & OCT, yes. Though the 'we don't insult people' concept was directed as much at legislators who oppose pro-gun bills as the cranky cousins.

RHenriksen

gregsauls wrote:"Senator, if your district doesn't support open carry, then your district won't see much open carry by its own constituents. Problem solved"

Nice

Search found 17 matches